Welcome all newcomers to the "GUTH Venus" discovery

( updated: March 14, 2002 )

If this is your first encounter, understand that your NASA has always had the fullest of access to this discovery as of January 2001 (that's not even including their previous decade worth of responsibility towards the public's investment into the Magellan mission) and, if you have not seen anything formally speculating upon this discovery, thank only NASA for that also because, I've tried my best, right from the very beginning to involve and keep NASA as well as other pro-NASA types advised as to what I had uncovered from within their very own and apparently very dead-horse archived series of otherwise high resolution (NSA spy grade) radar images pertaining to Venus. Also realize, many of my description and research pages were created nearly a year ago and, each have been updated with whatever revisions and corrections I could manage, so, the context of each page may have become somewhat disordered as far as my ongoing timeline, but true none the less.

As with so many of my pages, this one will be improved upon, as I discover better ways of informing about and reveling worthy considerations, so do check back from time to time, as you may discover something new and/or perhaps simply begin to realize the greater good and "truths" which this discovery has to offer, or possibly the greater threat if you should happen to be one of those pro-NASA types so arrogantly standing in the way of the "truth".

Dear pro-NASA types; My efforts at conveying what the planet Venus has to offer was originally received by NASA as a dull thud and, I do recall being informed (repeatedly) that I was totally dead wrong about essentially everything and furthermore, I was even being told to essentially stop bothering them and to pursue this effort with those at "space.com". As NASA soon discovered, sending me off into that "space.com" den of moles was a very foolish thing to have done.

At first I was rather surprised at such an aggressive negative response, but then I was still trusting and sufficiently persuaded buy NASA to take this (at their request) onto those at "space.com", where I again mistakenly thought, because this was something specifically advised by NASA, that this was perhaps a normal sequence of events. Then I learned a thing or two, obviously far more then I needed to.

The only thing normal about "space.com", this was and still is an official den of moles, clearly working as "damage control" on behalf of their God NASA. Understand, I had to discover this for myself, wasting another month or so, and as a result I'm continually uncovering further "damage control" throughout much of what's out there for the average individual such as myself to connect with. I also eventually discovered a lot having to do with history, much of which you will likely not care to hear about, and you certainly don't have to unless you wish to continually side with those braille pro-NASA types. And, don't get me wrong, I am not about bashing NASA, especially over the greater good which has been achieved (the vast majority of those within NASA are good and justly richest individuals), as I am merely returning the favor, by requiring the very same third degree of "extraordinary proof" as being asked of my discovery. I mean, fair is fair.

So, instead of taking the high road, those acting upon their sworn duty as to providing such damage control, intended and most likely orchestrated from the outset to destroy whatever they could, to otherwise inflict as much damage upon my discovery as possible and to further insult even my limited intelligence. Over the past year, I've received little if anything that would represent any serious consideration towards disproving what can be seen on Venus, however, I've received a sufficient amount of intentional misinformation that gave more then cause for myself to go looking for the ulterior motives and hidden agendas, so as to better understand those obviously hard at work, as to be protecting a pagan God like entity. Due to this sort of formal opposition, this effort has taken on the manner of becoming a declared war.

From this early point on, I soon realized a lot more of what I was going up against (literally power and greed mixed in with ulterior motives and worse). In order to get my discovery out to other researchers and the public, was to require my accomplishing what I mistakenly thought NASA was all about, which was researching and then informing the public as to what it was that had been discovered, so that others might focus their expertise and eventually introduce their ideas and, together we would eventually boil all of this down into something that was more likely the case then not. My opposition, on the other hand, has offered not one observational image worthy of supporting their stance that all of this is fairly common and/or typical of Venus and, above all else totally of natural origins, yet not one freaking exploration image by which they can support their bashings, just a whole lot of bad words and accusations towards disqualifying me and my discovery work. How rude and more so, how pathetic.

Even from the original raw SAR image, this was for me sufficient to realize that there were highly unusual patterns (clearly differentiating from all other areas of Venus) and worthy of a closer look. What I originally saw was merely geometrical and highly unusual symmetrically vertical considerations that were so collected and so unlike other areas of Venus and, all this was originally without resampling (enlarging). My later efforts involved various photo software solutions and with each a fairly extensive effort at applying filters in order to realize the most from the original image. Every process step was reversed to certify that nothing new was being introduced. Eventually these efforts paid off, by allowing for a reasonably good representation, considering the size and sheer numbers of those original raw SAR pixels that were so involved in these artificial looking patterns.

My enlargements were obviously good enough (perhaps a little too good) but not the best industry has to offer. Working with what I had, the eventual scale and certified quality of my enlargements equally allowed for the surrounding terrain to be enhanced into allowing a darn good observational comparison of what differentiates natural from artificial. This same enlargement process failed to created artificial looking elements from any of the surrounding terrain and, I had looked at hundreds of other Venus images and essentially thousands of smaller areas within, applying the very same process where equally this effort introduced no indications of manipulating the common terrain into anything artificial looking. Yet, back at "GUTH Venus" we have what is clearly to be identified as representing far more likely signs of intelligence formulating structures and infrastructure then not. The airship consideration is by itself worthy of our continued efforts, that bridge is another, the raised airport another, those reservoirs yet another and so on.

If to be persuaded by NASA's stance, that all of what's to be seen is purely natural of impacts, tectonics, lava flows and erosions, then clearly even this aspect alone represents the most highly concentrated of ever to be recorded of such complex formations and, furthermore, of such extraordinary formations which have yet to be based upon any known series of natural events, that which could have managed this incredible degree of complex issues having so developed an infrastructure looking environment to boot. So, how can all this be? and, why can't supposedly highly qualified pro-NASA types see this for what it is?, What is their excuse this time?

Excuse me; If I can't but wonder what all the (initiated by NASA) bashing effort was about, if not clearly to intentionally mislead others, dismiss and to otherwise destroy this opportunity. Besides what other issues I've had to uncover, what motives and hidden agendas are so worth passing up such a grand and obtainable goal as that being represented by the "GUTH Venus" discovery? If you think you know something, please volunteer whatever you can, as time and moneys (mostly from your wallet) is running out.

Efforts to provide the third degree of "extraordinary proof" have managed to resolve far more then I had anticipated. Just for starters; the Magellan mission actually happened, along with the why, the where and the how fully documented, explainable and above all believable, plus the imaging results were as then and even more so now, clearly certified as to differentiating that which is natural verses artificial. Thirdly; is the fact that such imaging, some of which captured above the horizon showed no stars (unlike conventional film), is fully understood and there is simply no contest regarding that issue. Forth; this is having to do specifically with the capability and "truth" available as taken from within the actual 8 bit SAR digital imaging, which was only further enhanced by having accomplished the task at a superb 43° perspective. Fifth; this is having to do with the very nature of SAR imaging being vastly superior to CCD in many respects, such as not having lens limitations nor distortions and not requiring illumination plus, capable of defining much as to the content or formulation of any specific target. Sixth; has to do with virtual elimination of any possible errors because every pixel was comprised of at least 4 looks and, tampering simply can't be accomplished without being easily detected, here again (unlike those Apollo missions), everyone has access to the originals, so why even attempt to alter an image and, unlike the Cold-War and associated impact upon those Apollo missions, Venus simply offered no ulterior motivation nor received influence from NSA/DoD, as to add or subtract anything from the Magellan mission. So basically, SAR imaging is "WYSIWYG".

Remember this; I am qualified as an observational exploration researcher and, I am obviously not merely guessing at what there is to be seen, as objects truly being that of an artificial nature. My ongoing descriptions of what many of these discrete considerations may actually be is somewhat of an evolving process, which has been taking place in spite of NASA. So, if I happen to misinterpret that bridge issue as a suspension consideration, when in fact it may be an arched-truss or trestle like structure, either way it's certainly artificial and clearly nothing natural about such a sizable structure spanning a half+ mile Grand Canyon (having a tunnel and road association to boot). If I have chosen to call those collected reservoir looking items (grouped as into a clover pattern) as being some form of fluid receivers, as taking and/or delivering their substance to/from that upper individual reservoir (the one clearly indicating the dark "fluid" center), I could certainly be all wrong, as these massive containments (all toll 50+ million cubic meters worth) may simply represent that of a massive theme park adventure ride or perhaps something other, such as open pit mining or perhaps open fuel storage (there are fluids and fuels such as h2o2 that will not boil off at such elevated sites while under such atmospheric pressures and, h2o2 produces it's own Oxygen), again, either way these are clearly artificial, as nothing on Earth or from any other planetary images (especially nada, zip nothing from Mars) has offered anything remotely close without being artificial and, over the past 14 months, not one of my discovery bashing fools has come up with one damn worthy idea (let alone any supportive image) as to even how or why such massive as well as complex interrelated (infrastructure looking) formations could have been naturally formed.

If you even bothered to read anything I've previously documented, you must realize this may all be the remains of pre-greenhouse life, a life force which may have only recently died off (like that of Easter Island, perhaps the last of those on Venus faded away just last year). None the less, this still makes this find truly worthy and simply far reaching, beyond anything NASA has achieved in the past and/or is likely to accomplish in the next fifteen years. Out of all the proposed new missions (none of which happen to include Venus), Venus could become our most obtainable goal and, even more so with any respect to the highly affordable opportunity by simply taking advantage of the October 2002 event, this is where Venus will be a mere 108 times further away then our moon and, if that's not maximum bang for our buck, I don't know what is.

Because I have accumulated so many pages over the past year (much of which has been in response to various pro-NASA types bashing away at my discovery), if my words become a little too much or simply confusing, just call and I'll do my best to summarize and/or point out or simply better explain what it is that I was trying to convey in the first place. Sending your questions via email is also fine by me, however, be advised that NASA/NSA/DoD will be reading your text before I do.